Future of UN after attacks on Iraq.

 “When there is a dispute between two small nations, the UN steps in and the dispute disappears. When there is a dispute between a small nation and a large nation, the UN steps in and the small nation disappears. When there is a dispute between two large nations; the UN disappears.”

 What has the UN done for you? What is it supposed to do? Controversially you can classify it as an international organization that has been designed to "maintain international peace and security" and "to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest" (United Nations Charter). Or indulge in the new definition that’s making rapid rounds that its only America’s security blanket, spurned conveniently whenever required.

 Is it really? Has the attack on Iraq forecasted the demise of the UN? Or is it this that since after the 9/11 blow, American just can’t get enough of rubbing in the fact that it’s the ultimate superpower and Bush will lash out whenever he pleases?

 “The West in effect is using international institutions, military power and economic resources to run the world in ways that will maintain Western predominance, protect Western interests and promote Western political and economic values.” (Huntington: The Clash of Civilizations)

This example is glaring at you right in your face! Look at the United States: a nation that is cunningly manipulating the UN framework and using it as an instrument to boost its national interests. The Cold War declared the United States as the only superpower and this has made it a dominant country with premier sway over peace and security issues in the Security Council, not to mention being a constant pain in the international peacekeeping panorama.

Now recently despite the endless reports, belligerent meetings, stalling of military action, splits in the Security Council, France’s confrontational veto, humiliating Colin Powel and rebuttals by Security Council members; the US-led coalition still launched series of attacks in Iraq bypassing the United Nations while President Bush warned that the UN risked 'irrelevance' if it failed to endorse the US resolution.

Will you not question how and why does it face irreverence? With what right and where does this leave the United Nation’s authority? It is not a ‘united’ nations organization rather then an American organization? Is its authority grounded in America soil along with its headquarters? Then at the same time if the UN has been so darn concerned about Iraq then why has it been officious with its sovereignty and bleeding it slowly with sanctions and for the late 10 years or so? And Iraq has only been one of its victims. There are many dueling facts that arise from American politics versus humanitarian efforts, they drain the United Nation’s authority or restore it on the pedestal as per convenience.

Colin Powell indicated that 'we all understand the UN must play a role, but the nature remains to be seen' (The Times, 4 April 2003). If the UN is the unbiased universal medium, that it is claimed to be, that too with an encoded role delineated in its charter then what remains to be seen? And that too by America?

What is left of the fire fueled in the UN is still smothering. The US House of Representatives, on 3rd April, agreed that money from federal contracts to rebuild Iraq would not go to companies from nations whose members opposed the war in the UN Security Council. (New York Time 4 April 2003). Talk about a bruised ego!

George Papandreou, the Greek foreign minister said that 'The importance we place on the United Nations role is recognized by the United States'. Is it? 

NATO secretary general, George Robertson spoke of 'a growing consensus in the future'. Oh really? Where?

The German development minister cast doubt on post-war cooperation, saying that: 'Those that do the damage carry the main burden for reconstruction.' Well at least somebody knows what he is talking about!!!

Doesn’t that make you wonder? First they spurn it… and then they want it back! Even Mr Bean could tell you that its because in the long run, no Western power wants to risk standing out in the cold without the Security Council’s security blanket.

Ironically they desire to safeguard the old mechanisms of the international order where they can run for cover under a collective banner rather then be liable for their international interventions. They are uneasy about dealing with issues on an ad-hoc/ face-to-face basic. They direly need what the UN offers: stability, a collective forum, negotiation, concession and consensus; but does it? You tell me…

The UN charter gave the Security Council the mandate to ”take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security” (article 51) with the assumption that conflicts between two aggressive nations will be curbed. This took a different turn as allies were formed and one or more superpower had personal interest or gain from the conflict thus the permanent members of the Council displayed disinclination to agree on joint actions and used their veto power in the Security Council.

Contravening the UN and attacks on Iraq have given birth to an international plinth that questions the UN grip and highlighted the need to evaluate the current system of UN peacekeeping while taking onto account its past successes and the failures. (Ahem!)

Earlier on its approach was of traditional peacekeeping to promote international stability and the peacekeeping forces had no military objectives. Emphasis was on negotiations and not combats and decision-making was significantly influenced by:

• 
  
  International support
  
  
• 
  
  UN command and control
  
  
• 
  
  Multinational composition
  
  
• 
  
  No use of force except for in self-defence
  
  
• 
  
  Military neutrality
  
  
• 
  
  Impartiality on political basis